The Egyptian Roots of 'Freemasonry', the Inner Cult of the 'Kings'

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I just started reading a book that Jerry found, written by a retired Italian admiral, Flavio Barbiero. It is titled The Secret Society of Moses. Jerry and Joe briefly talked about it on one of their podcasts, I believe on Mithraism and Early Xianity. Hopefully, Jerry will correct me if I am wrong.

I believe Jerry mentioned the book because of that Barbiero claims that Mithraism was a secret society vehicle that acted much then as does what we know of in the last few centuries as Freemasonry. This claim was also made by David Fideler in his Jesus Christ, Sun of God. We can add to Mithraism a long list of related other societies as well, and that the role of such can evolve over time as is expedient to the needs of the day. Hence such an example as Mithraism can have a considerably different aesthetic than does the typical Egyptian motif found in the various forms of masonry. The important thing to consider is that these societies provide cover to allow strings to be pulled, sub rosa, within a respective society that would not be considered Hoyle otherwise if everything is performed 'above board'.

Much ado is made by some concerned about masonry in that it is obviously 'Judaic' in nature and thus part of the Jews ever nefarious Zionist plot. Well, as I have discussed before, this is only partially true, just not the whole picture, .... importantly. Sardonically, many of the same people get their hackles raised in their desire to defend from what they perceive as an outside Judaic (or other) attack upon themselves and their Xian 'gentile' culture. This is exactly the way the system, Western Civilization much less masonry, was designed.

The very first problem one encounters in the superficial identification of masonry as simply being 'Judaic' is the question of why Freemasonry uses so much ancient Egyptian symbology. Here one is frequently tempted to say that this must be evidence that the 'Jews' are trying to deflect the focus on themselves, a false flag ruse of sorts. However, a deeper examination of the roots must lead to the opposite conclusion.

And so from the very title of Barbiero's book, one can be further led down the superficial path in identifying Judaism as the driver of masonry. After all, Moses is the father of Judaism correct? Well, Jerry and I (and other researchers as well) say just who was this Moses 'character' in the first place. Ironically for us, Barbiero is willing to take Moses's persona on face value, and despite this, for me, Barbiero's 'deeper' analysis provides us much fruit in further completing our OT analysis. For here it comports very well with our False Dialectic construct of Western Civilization -- once taking Barbiero's Mosaic identity error into account.

Like most others, Barbiero's easy error allows the misidentification of the Sheepdogs for the Shepherds, or the scarecrow for the farmer. Furthermore, Barbiero casually conflates various other OT entities as being Judaic, under the Mosaic banner. Well, most people do the same, even Jews. Besides the oddities of the Moses narrative that Barbiero discusses, central to his analysis is the importance of the city of Shiloh, of which I have to admit was completely off my radar, via the nature of my Sunday School education and such. I'm guessing that this was the intent of the Sunday School curriculum.

In any case, Shiloh was the city, centered in the tribal territory of Ephraim, that contained the sole cultic temple of the Conquered Canaan. According to the OT narrative, this was true for centuries until the Philistines destroyed Shiloh, thus setting the stage for the narratives of kings Saul, David, and Solomon, around the year 1000 BCE. And with these latter, the tableau is tilted to Jerusalem and Judea, the literal land of the tribe of Judah. The temple at Shiloh is destroyed and then the famous one we know and love (or vice versa) is raised in Jerusalem. Cui bono?

What happened to those that had occupied Shiloh for several centuries? This gets into the important stories of Ephraim and the various descendants of Levi (including Moses and his brother Aaron). As Barbiero reveals there is a lot of literary legerdemain that takes place in hiding the fates of the downstream descendants of Moses. But Jerry and I have already set the stage for the real importance of understanding Ephraim, and as well, via the Sabbah brothers and others, we know the Egyptian (and Meso) origins of the entire Judaic construct.

To end for the moment, it is interesting to note that there was an important US Civil War battle named Shiloh (April 6-7, 1862). It centered on a small, rustic, rural church and as such, I have to wonder if it was a bloody paean to the original biblical battle of Shiloh. Especially given how many masons have been in the US military (both sides of the Civil War (and Revolutionary War) included). I'll later discuss some issues about the origins of the Philistines and the tribe of Dan and how they relate to the 18th Dynasty pharaohs and the collapse of the Late Bronze Age.

Interestingly, April 6, 1917 was when the US Congress declared war on Germany. April 6, 2017 was when globalist Trump launched missiles on Assad, exactly 100 years, to the day, later.

End of Part 1
Last edited:
Part 2

Pondering about the American Battle of Shiloh also brings to mind the division of the USA into northern and southern polities, the big sticking point being the issue of slavery. According to the Bible, slavery (of the Hebrews) had been the driver for the Exodus in the first place, and as I have discussed before, most everyone, including American blacks, conveniently ignore that the narrative of Joseph (Genesis 47) explains that he and the pharaoh took advantage of the 'capitalist' markets (and the climate patterns) to end up enslaving all the Egyptians -- for both Joseph's and pharaoh's benefit. Yet only a few generations later the canon is telling us about the plight of the Hebrew slaves. What happened to the Egyptian slaves? The archaeology of Egypt can find no evidence of any such slavery in the work camps of those that built the pyramids, at least. But maybe later on, in the delta region cities such as Tanis / Avaris such might have occurred, but we still don't have an explanation for Egyptian versus Hebrew slaves.

The typology of the American Shiloh and the biblical Shiloh seems generally reversed. With the biblical Shiloh is the sole sacrificial cult center of the Promised Land, and with the American Shiloh there are not only churches everywhere in America, but the church at Shiloh is barely more than a shack. The American Civil War was won by the northern Union, while the eventual result of the destruction of Shiloh was the rise of the southern Judea and Jerusalem. However, in both cases, there seems to have been a north-south enmity that endures/endured. The Bible records that the northern Israelites hated both Judeans - David and Solomon, but this fact is also not one that receives much focus in the normal church setting. Here, the social dynamics are the same then as now, the elite globalist profiteers versus the parochial-ists, if you will. And, importantly, both scenarios involved an initial Conquest of the respective new lands.


A replica of the Civil War era Shiloh, Tennessee church.

And so this brings us to a discussion of what this mysterious, centuries-long gap between the time of the Exodus / Conquest and the beginning of the famous 'Judean' kingship and the Temple of Solomon is all about. The feature the gap is best known for is the interesting concept of the so-called 'Judges'. According to the Bible, the judges serve as ad hoc emergency leaders that are selected by the rest of the Israelite / Hebrew polity to handle situations such as attacks from their heathen neighbors. So, for the time being, they act as kings, but there is no hereditary dynastic aspect to the office.

As Barbiero discusses then, this left the religious high priest office at the Shiloh Temple separate from such secular affairs. And so what makes the circumstances of Shiloh and who was really in charge there so interesting now? As Barbiero mentions the 'censorship' of the familial names, that otherwise indicate the descendants of Moses (as opposed to Aaron), he also discusses the unique treatment of Shiloh itself in relation to the other 48 cities of Israel apportioned to the Levites for control. In the list of 48 cities are 4 within the territory of Ephraim, except that Shiloh itself is not mentioned. The focus of Barbiero's discussion here is just who is running the Shiloh show, and the combined argumentation is that it must be the lineal descendants of Moses. And that either the original authors or, according to Barbiero, the later redactors have undertaken efforts to expunge the lineage of Moses (from the canonic record, at least). It must be remembered here that famously Moses is told by God himself that he will not be allowed to enter the Promised Land.

We claim, like others, that this is just a literary ruse to cover over the fact that Moses (and Aaron) were really pharaohs, who had initiated the whole business. And I say as a piece with the entire collapse of the western Mediterranean region, the end of the Late Bronze Age (and culturally marked by the Trojan War from the later Greek perspective). As this dynasty of pharaohs would culturally, if not ethnically cleanse, Canaan in order to plant a new Mosaic culture, they would initiate the cleansing of Mycenaean Greece and the Hittite empire from which such as Classical Greece would eventually arise .... centuries later. Odd that the 'Greeks' such win the Trojan War, but that Mycenae and its surrounding area would be a literal vacuum of humanity for a considerable spell - as the archaeology demonstrates. And thus we find that both Classical Greece and 'Israel' have deep Egyptian roots, which the mainstream has historically gone to lengths to deny. With the case of Israel, the motive to deny goes right to the foundation with the famous 613 Mosaic laws, which completely invert Egyptian pagan culture. As with the famous saw, "Me thinks ye protest too much," it seems here that 'Moses' legislatith too much.

In other words, everything is done in an attempt to cover up the origins of who started all this in the first. By 'all this' I am referring to the concept of ours called the False Dialectic of Western Civilization. Namely the cultural war, at least, between the Jews and the 'Greeks' / gentiles. As I discussed in the OT analysis series, the very name 'gentile' helps to reveal the ruse (as do other aspects) as the word relates to 'elites' and not to 'goyim' (generally understood as the un-Jews).

Why do all this one might ask? As I frequently mention the entire Judeo-Christian religious canon is chock full of globalist references and ambitions. While most humans tend to think along the more limited lines of what is possible for their personal and immediate familial ambitions, such as the Egyptian pharaohs, and their relatives from Mesopotamia (the Mittani and such), had the leisure and ambition to think along a much larger scale. They did know about the larger 'spherical' world (yet they also later tried to hide this fact as well) and thus decided to embark upon a long-term project to achieve global hegemony. This, on a time scale that is totally impractical to almost everyone, and hilariously to most of those who are most pious in reading the holy books. I remember how we were schooled in being proud that Americans have no imperial ambitions. No, now we just have 600 plus military installations around the globe. The better to 'protect' you, my dear.

Back in its 'hay' day, Egypt was once in the middle of a lush savannah, long since taken over by the Sahara Desert. For whatever reasons, the climate on Earth waxes and wanes, in shorter and longer cycles, and such as the star gazing elites are more likely than rude farmers and craftsmen to pay attention to such things. As such, as such elites seem quite fond of their long lineages, they might be inclined to implement a scheme for perpetuating themselves into neighboring regions that will be more hospitable, for various reasons, going forward. And having already had much experience in such contentious real estate matters, they would be inclined to take up measures to disguise themselves (their Identities) and/or to neutralize or 'cleanse' the competition. This would inherently involve 'degrading' cultures from time to time, and convincing the gullible and/or kind hearted of the sacred imprimatur of their ambitions.

Thus while most 'missionaries' are out teaching the 'natives' to lead ethically and otherwise superior lives (frequently but not always the case), behind the scenes the elite Shepherds are cynically making their real estate deals and plans harvesting the spoils of the lands. But if the former conquistadors squat on their lands too long, over the generations they turn into relative 'natives' (albeit 'patriots'). As recent history demonstrates the neoJosephs and neoPharaohs manipulate the markets and their corporations buy out the patriots' land at fire-sale prices. The patriots, once descended from European serfs, are lucky if they can turn into wage slaves, the goals of the Shepherds today being the same as in Genesis 47.
Last edited:
Part 3

One of the key phenomena of the OT narrative is that of the so-called Judges. It is a rather unique social phenomenon in being that of a society that seemed to operate without the institution of a king or emperor. Of course, as the story goes, this situation was unable to last and a permanent and dynastic kingship became necessary.

The background context here, and in comparison with the early USA, is interesting in that the Promised Land had been divvied up into 12 tribal regions. According to the narrative then, these people were freed slaves (who crossed a body of water) and essentially colonized the lands of other peoples, the Canaanites. As I have related elsewhere, this is pretty much the situation with the American colonies.

"Aha, Mr. Stanley, there were 13 colonies (and states) -- and not everyone were freed slaves."​

Well, let's think about that a bit. There were 12 Hebrew tribes, yet the tribe of Joseph was divided into two, that of Ephraim and Manasseh). So depending on how you want to do your tribal accounting we have 13 entities, even though many people describe Ephraim and Manasseh as "half-tribes". Also, the tribe of Levi was never assigned a region of its own, so now we're back to 12 regions. Of course, the Levites were instead distributed amongst the tribal regions and assigned complete governing control of the 48 largest cities of the former Canaan. The Levites also were the tribe of Moses and Aaron, of whom we've seen claimed were connected one way or another (even in the biblical text) with the Egyptian royal family.

In America, the colonies were sponsored by royal grants, provided to favored parties of the gentry and above, but the bulk of the colonists were those whose immediate ancestors were not far removed from being feudal serfs in the old country. There was much religious fervor in the new colonies, almost each being a sectarian based theological tribe distinct from the others. At one time the OT fervor was so high that there was debate about making the official language of the new country that of Hebrew and not English.

But, there was one other aspect which Barbiero discusses and that was the unique nature of Shilo, located in the middle of the tribal territory of Ephraim. As such Barbiero claims that the otherwise odd narrative treatment regarding the family of Moses indicates to him that Shilo was the place where Moses's descendants, at least, ran the whole affair -- behind the scenes, that is, behind their sacred high priestly 'veil' that they inherited from Moses. Now, Barbiero accepts the main biblical premise that there was indeed a rebellious breakaway from Egypt, and this is where I and other researchers part company with him.

Instead, I say that Shiloh (aka Bethel) becomes a special district, from which the descendants of Moses can do the bidding of the Home Country, i.e. the pharaohs. A special district, hmmm. Like the District of Columbia say (all that ... Masonic imagery)?

What about those Judges? Well, according to the whole Exodus and Conquest narrative, we're really talking about creating a new paradigm in the land that is directly adjacent to the Home Country, the greatest power on Earth, as far as we know. The Canaanites, for the most part, were long vassals of the Egyptians, if not always the most loyal. And at the general time, they were still vassals. They even wrote the infamous Ahkenaton complaining to him for not sending enough support to protect them from other peoples.

Well, if we can assume that our premise is correct and that the Egyptians were interested in creating the new paradigm, but on some covert basis, then we now have a reason to impose the Judge system upon the new schema. The tribes, in this period, had no reason to have real kings, because they were really operating under the wing and the covert imprimatur of Egypt. From the perspective of the common people, the 'apparent' governance was done from the Shiloh Temple. The so-called judges were elected ad hoc whenever there was a military crisis, yet these occurrences were with the neighboring local powers like Moab and Ammon, not such as the behemoths of Assyria and Hatti. Likely the Egyptians themselves may have sponsored these crises to instill some sense of cohesiveness in the nascent Israel, as well as to provide cover to cleanse the populace of those resisting the new paradigm.

The last such crisis for this Judge period, however, was with the Philistines, who had moved onto their lands from across the sea and had come there peacefully, and unopposed by the Egyptians. Similarly, the Egyptians had allowed a tribe of so-called Sea Peoples to settle in the Egyptian delta. The northern 'Hebrew' tribe of Dan was formerly of Mycenaen Greece, and other tribes seem to have been originally native Canaanite, such as Asher.

In my opinion, it is likely that the general populace of this early 'Israel' was well aware of what was going on, and it would only be hundreds of years later, via various cultural manipulations, ethnic cleansings, forced migrations, and such, that generational cultural memory was overcome. Most of the 'tribes' were expelled leaving only those ostensibly identifying as Jews, of the tribe of Judah. These people would come to believe the 'official story' because this was the only story they were allowed to hear. And thus the stage would be set later for a nationalist confrontation with globalist Rome (aka neo-Edomites). The victorious emperors had already had themselves recognized as official pharaohs.

Next, I'll discuss the ethnic cleansing of the tribe of Benjamin, which sounds remarkably like the later Roman's Rape of the Sabine Women ruse. Both take place in the foundational stages of these enterprises, apparently to achieve the same political purposes under a false pretext.

End of Part 3
Last edited:
Part 4

I was originally going to start this section regarding the ethnic cleansing of the tribe of Benjamin, but it reading the context of the prior chapters in the Book of Judges it appears that there are at least two prior episodes to relate first. I suspect the others will all be revealing once read again in our new understanding.

So now the one I will start with is the narrative of Jephthah and its set-up in chapter 10. This leads directly into the story of the "shibboleth" which curiously victimizes the tribe of Ephraim (the holders of Abraham's Blessing from God):

6And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim, and Ashtaroth, and the gods of Syria, and the gods of Zidon, and the gods of Moab, and the gods of the children of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines, and forsook the LORD, and served not him. 7And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hands of the Philistines, and into the hands of the children of Ammon. 8And that year they vexed and oppressed the children of Israel: eighteen years, all the children of Israel that were on the other side Jordan in the land of the Amorites, which is in Gilead. 9Moreover the children of Ammon passed over Jordan to fight also against Judah, and against Benjamin, and against the house of Ephraim; so that Israel was sore distressed. 10And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, saying, We have sinned against thee, both because we have forsaken our God, and also served Baalim. 11And the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Did not I deliver you from the Egyptians, and from the Amorites, from the children of Ammon, and from the Philistines? (Judges 10 KJV)​

The above is interesting in that God has sold the Israelites into the hands of the Philistines and the Ammonites because they sinned against him. One would think that given this god's supposed supernatural wonders that he demonstrated directly to the Israelites ancestors that they would yet be a bit more fearful of angering him. Here I say that this further evidence that most of these 'tribes' were not originally followers of the monotheistic Yahweh, but rather were typical Canaanites under the Canaanite pantheon. (Note that I have highlighted Moab as well, in light of the recent MOAB bomb usage.)

God then asks 'didn't I deliver you from these people?' apparently meaning when they first supposedly arrived via the Conquest several centuries prior. This becomes important when Jephthah engages in a dialogue with the king of Ammon who has decided to attack the Israelites, supposedly to reclaim land that they had lost centuries before. Note, that no human alive at this time could have any ability to communicate directly with the people of that time. The narrative here simply has God stating (to whom exactly) that he has prior delivered the Israelite tribes to their respective lands.

The region of Gilead had been the land of the conquered Amorites on the east side of the Jordan, given to the tribes of Gad (hence the city of Gadara), Reuben (hence the sandwich), and Manasseh. And so the Ammonites had attacked across the Israelite lands east of the Jordan and also across the river into the land of the Ephraimites, the Judaeans, and the Benjamites. And so the people elected Jephthah, the son of a harlot, to lead them against the 18 years-old Ammonite oppression. The narrative makes much of the fact that the mother of Jephthah was a harlot and that apparently a man by the name of Gilead was the father, who had many legitimate sons by his wife. This seems to evoke something similar to the story of Hosea (Hosea 1) taking to wife the whore Gomer to later repopulate the land.

Jephthah is surprised that he has been asked after suffering much for his mother's sake, and he asks why they have done so, but the answer is strangely obtuse. After agreeing to take command he starts his dialogue with the king of Ammon, asking him why he is harassing the Israelites. The king states that he wants their land back, but Jephthah states that much of these lands were rightfully seized when those kings had done such as refuse rights of passage. After all, the Israelites had the imprimatur of God no less. And then Jephthah asks why the Ammonites have waited several centuries to press their claim.

Under Jephthah, the Israelites are wildly victorious and then Jephthah tragically is forced to enforce a promise he made to God against the first person he sees come forth from his house as he comes home from war. It is Jephthah's daughter, and sole child, who comes forth to greet him and celebrate. As a result, she must stay celibate for life and thus Jephthah, son of a harlot, will have no offspring to succeed him. I say all these circumstances around Jephthah are to indicate to the alert reader that this is all artifice.

End of Part 4a
Last edited:
Part 4b

This leads us to the infamous story of the Shibboleth.

1And the men of Ephraim gathered themselves together, and went northward, and said unto Jephthah, Wherefore passedst thou over to fight against the children of Ammon, and didst not call us to go with thee? we will burn thine house upon thee with fire. 2And Jephthah said unto them, I and my people were at great strife with the children of Ammon; and when I called you, ye delivered me not out of their hands. 3And when I saw that ye delivered me not, I put my life in my hands, and passed over against the children of Ammon, and the LORD delivered them into my hand: wherefore then are ye come up unto me this day, to fight against me? 4Then Jephthah gathered together all the men of Gilead, and fought with Ephraim: and the men of Gilead smote Ephraim, because they said, Ye Gileadites are fugitives of Ephraim among the Ephraimites, and among the Manassites. 5And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay; 6Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.

7And Jephthah judged Israel six years. Then died Jephthah the Gileadite, and was buried in one of the cities of Gilead.
(Judges 12 KJV)​

So much for Jephthah, son of the 'unnamed' harlot. They don't even know which one of the cities he was buried in. But good work buddy.

In any case, we now have a situation where it has been stated that the territory of Ephraim had been attacked (across the Jordan) by the Ammonites, and so these people should have cause to fight against the Ammonites along with their fellow Israelites. They claim that they were not called, but Jephthah claims that they were indeed. And because of this misunderstanding, or perhaps skullduggery on one side or another 42,000 men from Ephraim were slain, using the ability to pronounce a word correctly or not as a test of tribal identity. Because otherwise, all Israelites look the same apparently.

But let's remember here that the half-tribe of Ephraim was exalted, supposedly, via grandfather Jacob delivering the Blessing of Abraham to Ephraim directly, and that Ephraim and his older brother Manasseh had Egyptian blood of a high priest in them.

I looked up the meaning of the word shibboleth and it means the "ears of grain". Another use of the word in Job 24 reveals the following:

They are exalted for a little while, but are gone and brought low; they are taken out of the way as all other, and cut off as the tops of the ears of corn. (Job 24:24 KJV)​

And so the exalted (of Ephraim) are brought low. But there was a surviving remnant. The book of Isaiah(x?) says that the two sticks, Ephraim (or really Joseph) and Judah, will sometime in the future be made as one), and I have claimed prior that this occurred after WWII when Pope John XXIII ecumenically declared that he was the Jews' 'Joseph'. That apparently they would no longer need to serve the theological needs of the Roman Catholic church, as the former Catholic priest, James Carroll, elaborated at length in his Constantine's Sword.

I further suggest that this means that the 'original' tribe of Ephraim were Canaanites, whose land became the site for Bethel, cum Shiloh, the sole temple before that of Jerusalem's. The site of Shiloh is treated uniquely, even as regards to the Levites other cities around the 12 tribal regions of Canaan. And thus we are seeing a means to conflate the actual leaders of the whole scheme launched in Egypt as a project of the 18th and 19th Dynasty pharaohs with new identities of being Ephraimites. This conflation occurring as the original population is culled, as will happen with the Benjamites. Benjamin was the brother of Joseph, both being sons of the 'loved' mother Rachel. Some way to treat the descendants of your favored children, .... unless, that is, something else is afoot.

Next Samson, the Nazarite, and the collapse of the Philistine temple, followed by the culling of the evil Benjamites, while their remnant strangely gets to re-populate with fair maidens from ... Shiloh. If Nicholas DeVere was correct, then these had red hair and green eyes.
Last edited:
Under Jephthah the Israelites are wildly victorious and then Jephthah tragically is forced to enforce a promise he made to God against the first person he sees come forth from his house as he comes home from war. It is Jephthah's daughter, and sole child, who comes forth to greet him and celebrate. As a result, she must stay celibate for life and thus Jephthah, son of a harlot, will have no offspring to succeed him. I say all these circumstances around Jephthah are to indicate to the alert reader that this is all artifice.

In consulting my Harpers Bible Commentary it states that Jephthah actually sacrifices his daughter, as this was the promise he made to God, to 'sacrifice' the first thing he saw come forth from his house on his victorious return to it. Possibly he meant to sacrifice an animal, but the first coming from the house was his only child. This is apparently the meaning most everyone accepts, and I was being generous, as the text is somewhat ambiguous as to the conclusion. His daughter only asks for two months time to wander amongst the hills bewailing the fact that she has not had a child, or it actually states that she has not been with a man. So one is left to assume that Jephthah goes ahead and sacrifices her, rather than go back on his inane and too unspecific promise. This in disregard of the sanction against human sacrifice via Abraham and Isaac.

I'm guessing that this might be an attempt to gloss over an actual human sacrifice that was too well remembered, and that this is further evidence that such people of Gilead were originally Canaanites to begin with. This is the underlying problem during the Judge period and for centuries to come in that the various 'Hebrew' camps were always adhering to the old practices.

34And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. 35And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back. 36And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon. 37And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows. 38And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. 39And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel, 40That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year. (Judges 11 KJV)​

Is this what you call plausible deniability? Sacrifice, what sacrifice? She just never had a begetting, which is a different form of sacrifice ... like Onanism and modern birth control.
Last edited:
Part 5

Before I continue on with the narrative of Samson, the Harper's Bible Commentary has an excellent introduction to its discussion of the Book of Judges which it will profit here to summarize, especially as much of it comports well with my thesis.

It differentiates Judges from the prior Joshua, in that the Book of Joshua presents a picture of a rather sudden and complete Conquest of Canaan whereas the Book of Judges is forced to account for why the people, and thus their 'judges', must deal with ongoing issues related to all the heathens. Those 'heathens', not only neighboring the Promised Land, but also all those that somehow were left inside after the Conquest proper. These being the original populations of various Canaanite cities, some of which became Hebrew tribes -- later to be placed into forced immigration by the Assyrians.

We must also remember that during the Conquest that Joshua reports in some cases that orders were to kill all but the virgin girls ... whom could be put to good begetting use. Later in the HBC intro is discussed that the Canaanite power was focused in their cities, whereas the Israelite polity seems focused in a rural format, where the importance of family, clan, and tribe are much amplified, and occupational specialization is much less than in the cities. This societal contrasting in the HBC comes even before the findings of Silberman and Asher regarding further archaeological determinations of a collapse of Canaanite urban societies followed soon by the appearance of small and egalitarian villages in the rural highlands.

Here we must remember the unheard calls of Egyptian vassal kings in Canaan crying out to Akhenaton, in the so-called Amarna Letters, to come to their aid. But, Akhenaton was seemingly too pre-occupied with his Aton and his divine city to be bothered to protect his buffer states. The vassal kings wanted protection against various peoples, not only the Hittites but such as the Apiru, whom some have debated the latter as being the source of the name Hebrew. A name which is then later ironically and collectively applied to the new Israelite polity of twelve tribes. Let's also remember here that Psalms 104 seems remarkably drawn from the Great Hymn to the Aton, supposedly long buried in the sands of Amarna.

The Book of Judges is a compilation of the seemingly serial adventures numerous individuals, including 12 presented as rulers over Israel, over a period of 410 years. The nature of which appear (from the later redactors' glosses) to conveniently set the stage for the initiation of the strange and divisive Davidic monarchy. David, whose memory also vectors into the central character of the Christian narrative -- Jesus, that is, not Paul. There is an additional judge outside of Judges by the name of Samuel, whose role (in the Book of Samuel) is to orchestrate the transitional king of Saul and then launch David on his merry way.

The HBC intro explains that the Hebrew term for 'judge' is shaphat and that it has a wider semantic context than the English term. So here these biblical characters govern and rule with military functions, but they seem to be parochial to their respectively personal tribal region, sometimes bringing together neighboring tribes. Once mustering all the other tribes against the tribe of Benjamin. Some are said to deliver the entirety of Israel from their evil neighbors, but usually just a few tribes are affected; while other judges 'judge' Israel, but usually just one or a few tribes.

In this latter sense, the HBC discusses that this is an indication that the later 7th and 6th-century redactors have taken pre-existing tribal (we say Canaanite) stories and applied them to the new 'national' narrative. BTW, the 7th-century redaction was when King Josiah and his high priest conveniently found the 'lost canon'. The judges are also categorized as being 'major' or 'minor' judges, based upon whether they have a narrative assigned to them. The minor judges seem as if they have been picked out from a pre-existing annal that lists just their names. The various judges are separated by convenient (literary contrivances) 'rest' periods of 20, 40, and 80 years that when combined with the periods attributed to each judge add up to 410 years, as they are depicted in the canon. This period is too long for what even standard chronologies allow for, and there are some who suggest that various judges' durations could have overlapped with each other in reality. And here I suggest that this has been done intentionally to help disguise the true historical impetus of what has really happened. Namely the hidden hand of the Egyptians.

Within the compilation are repeating cycles of apostasy/punishment/repentance/deliverance, that begin to drop some elements moving towards the end. The result places a religious and propagandic gloss on an otherwise rejiggered secular history.

There are also suggestions that some differing respective POV accounts about the same individuals may have been merged into one during the redactions. This is also what appears to be the case for the inclusions of similar accounts of El and Yahweh in the canon as well, albeit the redactors apparently didn't feel frisky enough to merge them.

There is one odd female judge, the famous Deborah (and a guy named Barak), who hangs out in the highlands of Ephraim, a seeming veiled allusion to Bethel and Shiloh (the same place). To be defeated by a woman, in those days (and yet for some time - till Wonderwoman) was the ultimate insult, and so Deborah defeats the Canaanite king, with the conveniently named Jael, a Kenite tribal (a heathen) woman delivering the coup de grace with a hammer and tent peg to the head of the sleeping Canaanite general. Why, pray tell does a non-Hebrew woman, who more than evokes the names Jah and El, deliver the final blow for the 'Hebrew' cause? Deborah specifically tells Barak that a woman will deliver the final blow, and not him.

Even more curious, the Canaanite king is named Jabin, or son of Jah. His general is named Sisera, whose name is not Semitic, but may be that of a Sea People tribe according to the HBC. Can we take the name Jabin as further confirmation that Jah was indeed a member of the Canaanite pantheon, under his heavenly father El?

Another judge is Gideon, to be covered later, whose subtext is a tension between monarchy and egalitarianism (?) that seems remarkably close to that revisited between the Republican Romans and Julius Caesar, who both seem to decline the kingship. Hilariously, Gideon has a son named Abimelech (meaning 'my father is king'), and Gideon is then followed by someone named Abimelech as the very next judge. Hmmm

By the time of Samson, the aforementioned cycle is very degraded and the question becomes how can Israel break out of this pattern since the time of Joshua. The text states that anarchy is the rule and each man does "what is right in his own eyes". Samuel goes on 'circuit' to Bethel to render decisions (or rather does he receive direction (from the "hidden hand" as well?). In any case, Shiloh (Bethel) will be destroyed while the attention moves to Jerusalem, thanks to Samuel's orchestration. A dynasty is finally delivered to the land, but it doesn't resolve the problems. Instead, most of the 'tribes' are expelled, and thus the remaining Culture is more uniform to deal with.

The latter stories in Judges (coming next) place some of the Levites in a curious negative light, and central to the decimation of the tribe of Benjamin. The tribe of Judah will take another hit as well, as I have discussed in the OT series. (Of which much of this will become a part of.)
Last edited:
The various judges are separated by convenient (literary contrivances) 'rest' periods of 20, 40, and 80 years that when combined with the periods attributed to each judge add up to 410 years, as they are depicted in the canon. This period is too long for what even standard chronologies allow for, and there are some who suggest that various judges' durations could have overlapped with each other in reality.

Is it possible, or even likely, that the redactors really had no idea what the true chronology was? That is, they were looking at a pile of scraps of historical narratives, copied by various scribes at unknown times from unknown originals? And, without the benefit of any archaeological digs.

Could it be that the Biblical narrative's chronology is completely scrambled, driven by ideological and literary objectives rather than historical accuracy? Is there even any reason to believe otherwise?
As to your first questions, it's likely anyone's guess since it seems we don't have the original accounts. The HBC discusses that the original accounts, or many of them, may have been oral and only years later written down. I would think that if there had been rigorous detailing of those histories that the scribe would have noted the regnal year of the pharaoh du jour.

Yes, I would guess that the narratives were cobbled together, irrespective of chron reality, so as to create the propagandic messaging effect that they wanted to deliver to the descendants living 300 years plus later. They took much liberties in adding otherwise inane details to spice things up.
Just realized that the name 'Bethel' (House of God), works brilliantly for the transitional scheme (during the Judge and Monarchical periods) since the god El was the heavenly father god of the Canaanite pantheon. If the target audience was not mostly Canaanite in the first place there would have been no reason to use this name. And likely the name Shiloh was gradually emphasized more and more, over Bethel, to help wean the succeeding generations towards Yahweh.

Yahweh was a lesser male god in the Canaanite pantheon, and thus we have the motive within the Judaic canon to favor younger sons almost exclusively. This being consistent with the parallel gradual elevation of Yahweh to eventual coequal status with his father, and later where they are conflated with each other.

Once the Philistines conveniently destroy Shiloh ( .... Beth - El ) no one and no thing is left to testify first hand, at least, that things were different. However, lingering cultural memories were retained, and thus likely the later need to send most into forced emigration.

In case I have not stated so earlier here on this thread, let me reiterate that Bethel is the place where Jacob had his all night wrestling match with God (the supposed Creator of the Universe) with the outcome that God renamed Jacob to 'Isra-El'. He did not rename him to Isra-Ya. Place and region names are particularly hard to change for some reason, even with a new conquering culture, so likely the wider region had been known earlier as Isra-el.
I wonder if the archaeology could help us determine when Beth-El was destroyed and replaced by Jerusalem, and what was going on in Egypt at that time. (I suppose it's also possible that Jerusalem was really somewhere in Saudi Arabia or Yemen?) It would be nice to be able to get any part of this narrative pinned down in time and space. But I know that's asking a lot.
Yes, this would be good to know. I wonder what Wikipedia says? ;) There is always new information being added.

It's interesting to note that the land of Ephraim that contained Shiloh / Bethel is also generally known today as Samaria. The Samaritans later had their own competing temple to Yahweh at Mt. Gerazim, but I'm not sure what the relationship between the two places are.

When the Assyrians deported the Israelites, while in process they suddenly realized they needed to send some of the 'Samaritan' priests back for some reason. From then till this day, ironically the Jews claim that the Samaritans (only a few left today) were foreign implants of the Assyrians. Perhaps all part of the switcheroo scheme? IIRC, I believe that archaeology has discovered numerous Egyptian relics in the Samaritan's temple city bounds.
I wonder what Wikipedia says?

On an obscure topic like this, Wikipedia says pretty much whatever I want it to say. If it can be demonstrated from "reliable sources", that is. Barbiero is published by Inner Traditions, which is marginal, but I'd be willing to run it up the flagpole -- at least when it comes to statements of his that can be verified from the primary sources.

Do you think we're in a position to disprove and reject Sweeney's theory that the neo-Assyrians and the later Persians were one and the same? That is, Sweeney says that the dynasty running from Tiglath-Pileser III thru Nabonidus (conventional dates ~745 BC thru ~539 BC) are the same rulers as the Achaemenid dynasty from Cyrus to Darius III (conventional dates ~540 BC thru ~331 BC), but known by different names in different parts of their kingdoms.
On an obscure topic like this, Wikipedia says pretty much whatever I want it to say. If it can be demonstrated from "reliable sources", that is. Barbiero is published by Inner Traditions, which is marginal, but I'd be willing to run it up the flagpole -- at least when it comes to statements of his that can be verified from the primary sources.
A good portion of what I have been writing prior is my interpretations merged onto Barbiero's insights. The most important to me is that Shihoh and Bethel are essentially one and the same, which he provided the verses which demonstrate such, while his additional equation of those two with Mizpah appears wrong. And secondly, regarding this general period, and the Kings period, is in tracing the lineage of the 'Mosaic' and 'Aaronic' branches, and the unique treatment of Shiloh/Bethel in contrast to all other (the largest 48) Levitical controlled cities.

From what I'm doing here we haven't advanced much on the issue of Sweeney's theory. However, I do think there is some possible credence in the hypothesis that the biblical Midianites were indeed the Mittani, and then possibly the Mittani nobility, at least, were indeed the Medes (ala Rohl?). Barbiero discusses implications of Moses's shiksa marriage to a Midianite, and also reminds us that Abraham's second 'wife' (Haggar was not a wife) was also a Midianite. As such, if the Medes are the same as these, and given their role in helping Cyrus (whom the Jews canonically named as a messiah) establish himself as the first expansionary imperial power, then it all seems a nice weave of fabric. The Medes, as described by Herodotus, appear to fit the profile (behavioral and clan structure) of our 'Shepherds', perhaps related to (or aliases of) the Ashina and Sabeans?

And as you have mentioned, the possibility of the parallel patriarch narratives in Arabia is yet intriguing, and would indicate that there is indeed something much larger afoot as asserted by Gene Matlock in his difficult Jesus and Moses book. Matlock claimed that the ancient region of Bharata extended far beyond what we think of today as India, and incorporated the Arabian peninsula. And Shendge's claims of widespread back and forth interactions between the IVC and Mesopotamia seem compatible as well, as historical precursors of widespread Semitic / Arya tensions. Dialectic tension which a clever clan (perhaps as DeVere discussed) could prosper from long term religio-political exploitation.
Another detour is in order before getting back to Samson. In reading further into Barbiero's book, he reveals the key mechanisms of extending covert, Western elite clan power through time regardless of matters like religion and the superficial forms of 'state'. This extending back to at least Moses's (which we claim as the scheme of the 18th and 19th Egyptian Dynasties) time, and likely before even that, as described by the machinations of Abraham. This revelation (based on a massive amount of circumstantial evidence) demonstrates the consistent use of techniques to insinuate one lineage into the power structure of whatever lies on the next 'frontier' so to speak. This, then, is consistent with what we have previously described as cycles conquest, colonization, consolidation, and purposeful social degradation, as the cynical engine that moves things forward.

We can also see that the very same techniques (summarized further below) used in the Biblical Conquest, conversion, and pacification of the Canaanites has been repeated several times in the post-Roman imperial period. Here I refer to the Xian conversion of pagan Europe, leading to the various 'kingdoms', the Norman (re)Conquest (and its otherwise odd association with 'rude' Vikings), and then the Conquest of the New World. If it (the cyclic process) ain't broke, don't fix it.

And importantly, Barbiero's thesis, like ours, demonstrates that the Christian construct is a production of the elites, of which the elite-est of Jews were in on the production, rather than being the Xian antagonists. And that under this construction, there is no point in time, not one pico-second, where Xianity is not under such cynical control -- for the financial and political profit of its creators. As such, in some manner, we can indeed ask if the Pope is Christian? Or any other 'related' personages.

In reading further into Barbiero's account of the slow assumption of power into first millennium CE Europe, as honorary (and maybe even literal) Flavians, we can see one continuous thread formed by the lineage of one Josephus Flavius, who claimed to be of Hasmonean (Maccabee) descent. The Hasmoneans were elite priests who also assumed the mantle of secular kings in response to the Seleucid Greeks post-Alexander the Great. In this 'alleged' problem with the Greeks, the Hasmoneans eventually reached out to the Romans for help, which is how the Romans soon ended up running the show in Palestine, in time for Jesus ... and Josephus. As we all know, the latter makes good with the soon to be emperor, Vespasian, and his son, Titus, even to the point of later being allowed to append the Flavian name to his.

While I claim that this whole business with the surrender at Jotapata was a ruse and pre-planned (during Josephus's earlier pre-war trip to Rome), it should also be pointed out, as does Barbiero, that it was common practice for Romans to allow their freed slaves to append the patrone's surname to theirs. Here, Barbiero points out the large number, ubiquitous in fact, of historical persons that end up appending the Flavian name, or are born into it, the gens Flavia. Barbiero asserts that the original Flavians, and most all of the original 'pagan' Roman elites, were thus subsumed and eliminated via this and other related practices. Maybe so, but I believe there is enough evidence to believe that at least some imperial Romans were in on the plan. And from similarly modest beginnings global expansion was long on their active agenda, as well as in the Judaic world.

As such, I will briefly list the techniques employed, and hopefully, either Jerry or myself will get back to more fully elaborating them later on.

  • Alliance intermarriages
    • Pretty princess/queen with supposed Flavian imprimatur says "No Christie, no nookie"
    • Now broadly smiling converted king forces his people to convert, or else
    • Lineal descent of priesthood and elite clan status via the mother
      • Offspring is affiliated with infiltrating clan
      • Subsequent generations are bred back into purer lineage
  • Post Constantine era, church runs show in Western empire while Eastern Empire has the secular ruler
  • Church ecclesia, including frontier regions, all run by elite clan bloodlines, training not essential
  • Transitional 'Flavian' and later centuries, underground church and covert politics is guided by secret society, that of Mithra
    • Mithra Central was under today's St. Peter's Basilica
    • Sol Invictus (aka Mithra) is a nice paean to Aton
    • Former 'Judaic' elite priest family can operate sub rosa while overtly running the 'approved' (Flavian) Xian church
      • This also allows covert control of the military and other government functions
  • Employment of 'federated' barbarians against non-federated barbarians
    • Favored barbarians can even pretend to select Western emperors for a time
    • Collapse of Western empire is meaningless from ruling priest clan perspective, especially since they orchestrated the seeming collapse
      • Barbarians were all Arian (non-Trinitarian) Xians at this time anyways, and Constantine played both sides of this fence, as well as being the Mithraic 'pope'
Last edited:

The above new thread discusses the timely new Hulu series, The Handmaid's Tale, which makes apropos references and parallels to the Biblical Judges period. And directly on topic for this thread title, at least, a common refrain / mantra in the show is: "Under his eye", used like both a greeting and 'goodbye' (like 'aloha').

In the show, the new regime's 'eye' is not hidden, but quite overt, as appears apparent in the Biblical narratives of the Conquest (Joshua), Judges, and Kings periods. Only when the later paradigm of Christianity comes on the scene, does the Eye and its Hand must become Hidden (hence first Mithraism and later Freemasonry). This is because the same lineage clan of founders of Judaism could not be identified as also creating and running Xianity, or the jig is up so to speak. This is why Western Civilization, based upon the Abrahamic system (including Islam) is basically one gigantic Identity Scam. The clan who founded, ran, and run the Abrahamic religions are neither Christian, Jewish, or Islamic. Just as there is no Christian or Islamic ethnicity, the Bible explicitly and humorously tells that today's 'Jews' can not possibly be ethnically Jewish, a synthetic and artificial narrative construct. The Jewish rabbi brothers, the Sabbahs traced them back to an Egyptian priesthood, the Yahud, the personal prelature of Amenhotep III, the father of Akhenaton. "Under his eye."
Last edited: